The context in which Joseph Smith is placed determines how people view him. Throughout the nineteenth century, nearly all views of Joseph combined an American context with a broader transnational context. Mormons linked Joseph with the history of biblical prophets while critics assigned Joseph to a place among fanatics and false prophets. In 1903, I. Woodbridge Riley's doctoral thesis argued that Joseph Smith was nothing more than a product of a particular moment in American history. Riley also began the scholarly trend of viewing Smith through psychological interpretation, a tradition continued by Fawn Brodie and Dan Vogel. Others in the twentieth century went beyond the "colorful fraud" explanation of Joseph in revisiting the nineteenth-century transnational approach. Bushman discusses the history in which Joseph found himself. In his first encounters with various identities, Joseph must have been confused. The First Vision was likely seen initially as merely an extraordinary personal conversion, not as a prophetic initiation. After being able to locate lost objects by using a seer stone, Joseph must have seen himself within the history of magic or even something greater. Until the Charles Anthon experience linked him to a passage in Isaiah, Joseph no doubt felt lost as an unlearned translator. The Book of Mormon itself finally clarified his identity further by linking him with previous prophetic figures, helping Joseph to resolve three disparate identities--visionary, seer, and translator--and placing himself as the Lord's Prophet. Bushman concludes that in viewing Joseph Smith, we must try to understand his self-perception and that any strictly American view of Joseph's origins is insufficient to place a prophet who viewed himself connected to a much larger historical context.